Slashdot Mirror
A College Without Microsoft?
An anonymous reader asks: "My grandfather is the president of a well-known undergraduate-only college of about 7,000 students. He tells me that an alumnus has agreed to donate $2.4 million initially (and up to $800,000 each succeeding year for 10 years) to the school for computer equipment and staff if the school agrees not to renew any contract and to buy no products or services (either directly or through an intermediary like Gateway) from Microsoft. I'm told that this isn't the enormous amount of money that it sounds like and that a change-over to non-Microsoft products would be costly. I think it'd be great for college students to use computers apart from Microsoft, but I'm told that the board will look at the decision in terms of cost, not for benefit to the students. Does the Slashdot community have any points that I can give my grandfather to present to the Board next month?"
The reality is, the kids are going to need to know how to use Microsoft tools once they graduate in order to be successful in the real world.
Plus, imagine all the chaos as non-computer science majors try to struggle with Linux on the desktop in computer labs and so on. It will indeed probably cost a lot more than $2.4 million in the end.
This post might sound pro-M$, but it's not. I'm just trying to give the reality of the situation. Oh well, there goes my karma.
that they should put the good of the students ahead of any politics. That being said, the gift should be politely turned down. The best education these students could receive is a broad one.
That is, one that doesn't show any bias towards or against any one company's products. An education that includes zero microsoft products could be just as harmful as one that includes 100% microsoft products.
Fast forward to the first interviewer saying to a kid "What do you mean you've never heard of Visual Basic?"
You're not going to get an entire university to drop MS completely from the school for measly 2.4 million. Instead, try for a more narrow target. Something like "funds for the engineer school, if no engineering classes use MS products for classwork." Substitute for "engineering school" and "classwork" until you get a balance that is acceptable to both the donor and the school.
Here is the list of things I would tell your Grandfather:
1) Qualified (i.e. not test taking wonders) MCSE can physically manage about 14 MS Servers... However, a qualified Linux Admin can handle (depending upon variations in OS release) from 50-75. Much lower people cost.
2) The Admin time saved can be either be converted to cash (fewer employee admins), used to increase support of University Departments and Staff, or a combination of the two.
3) No BSA audits, papertrails, etc. which does not mean that inventory isn't maintained, it's just that it doesn't have to be a resource and legal liability issue (read, cheaper to operate).
4) I promise to send my son to this institution when he's ready for College (about 17 years from now).
Hmm that "real world" idea is part of the problem right there. In the real world, there's both MS stuff AND *nix stuff. A school that focuses purely on MS is just as detrimental as a school that focuses purely on *nix.
The fellow would be better off spending the $2.4 million on developing methods of teaching students how MS and *nix are related to each other, how BOTH are used in the real world, and familiarizing students with both.
The idea of a contract to remove MS products may help promote OSS, and help fight off monopolies, but it would be very, very bad for the students' futures.
...I'll procrastinate tomorrow...
From my expirience, someone who plain and simple knows how to code can learn an IDE in days. The other way around can be quite tough for those used to the "hand holding"
TODO: Something witty here...
At the risk of sounding like a Linux zealot, I must ask - what is the goal here, education or training?
I guess I always imagined, (and my Lit professors consistently agreed) that education was an experience that was supposed to transcend job skills and give you something you couldn't get from a technical guide, training bootcamp, etc.
If you are any sort of computer professional, you are training all the time. If you can't handle changing gears in terms of the development platform you use, you are already behind the game before you've even gotten started. If, on the other hand, you've gotten some real Computer Science with emphasis on theory, you are going to have a framework of knowledge which I personally understand to be education.
If one were to recognize the need to get into the nuts and bolts of a system, free from constraints of filtering the information to remove marketing intent, and free from anticompetitive obfuscation and outright deceit, which would be the best option to look at if one wanted an education?
In the end, this guy's grandfather would be restricting CHOICE! Which is something that this group should be firmly against. He would also be hurting student's education by not including these products, which are widely used in the real world. He should walk away, or get the guy to agree that just THAT money won't be used for Microsoft products, which would be a reasonable request. If the grandfather takes this deal, he is doing the exact thing that Microsoft competitors complain about, i.e. pay OEMs to only use their products.
It's not an IDE to relearn, it's an api. A good example is BSD sockets vs. Winsock. Yeah they do the same thing, and once you learn one, the other is trivial, but it eats up a lot of development time having to always learn the particulars of an api. I have the same problem, I'm a CompE that bit my teeth on old releases of redhat, which is roughly sysV UNIX, I picked up the VxWorks api no problem, cause it is pretty much the same. Windows programming for me is very hard because I spend 80% of my time buried in MSDN instead of coding.
-- the computer doesn't want any beer, no matter how much you think it does. NEVER, EVER feed your computer beer.
5. A professor or CS class could admin the servers.
As someone paid to admin linux machines at a university, I can't recommend -AGAINST- this enough.
Professors and students are users of the University computing facilities. Period. The labs are provided by the university, as are the copmuters themselves. If they want to play at being an admin, do it at home or in their dorm room. That, or get a job with information/computer services.
With that said, I fully agree that there should be -some- course time spent on teaching folks the basics of linux/unix administration, especially if that's what the prevalent platform on campus is.
However, I don't care -how- good the professors or students think they are (or how good they may actually be, unless they are actually working for the university/college as an admin, they shouldn't be permitted administrative privs on the machines.
(The -only- reason the prof I report to has the root password is in case I call in dead, and even in that case, it's in a sealed envelope, and he doesn't know what it is without cracking it).
If I were a board member I wouldn't want any part of such an arrangement. And if I were an IT Admin or an instructor in such an institution I'd be outraged that such a thing would even be considered.
Decisions about what software are used in teaching and administrative tasks should be left to the people who actually use the software. Making sweeping decisions based on the whims of a wealthy patron is not in the best interests of any institution.
I think it'd be great for college students to use computers apart from Microsoft, but I'm told that the board will look at the decision in terms of cost, not for benefit to the students.
What benefit to students is that, exactly?There's nothing to prevent the college from using open source or non-MS products wherever they want to, if they think it would benefit the students or the instutition as a whole.
And how is this different than when I was in college and presented with rows and rows of PS/2s? Looking for a Macintosh? Not a single one to be found. Sorry, but in many cases the student never HAD a choice. All they are doing in this case is changing the lack of choice from one mandate to another.
However, I agree with some of your other points. Microsoft is definitely not despised by everybody.
GreyPoopon
--
Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?
Presumably because they already have an investment in hardware that they don't want to blow.
Pros:
1) The university gets millions of dollars from an unnamed donor. A lot of the rougher parts of the transition could be smoothed over by this money. The other points will focus on the transition itself.
2) The university saves a bundle on licensing fees. This may be especially important since Microsoft is trying to move towards a subscription model.
3) While open source solutions aren't drop-in replacements for Microsoft products, the end user apps are similar enough to minimize the need for retraining. If someone knows their way around a Windows desktop, Gnome and KDE are pretty easy to grasp. The same goes for Office vs. OpenOffice and IE vs. Mozilla. With power users, its sometimes trickier, since they may have come to rely on certain obscure features.
4) With OSS, you don't need to rely on Microsoft for technical support. The fact is, Microsoft is the only company capable of adding features and fixing bugs in Microsoft products. So if you have a problem with those products, and MS isn't interested in fixing them, you're out of luck. Open source is more flexible in this regard.
5) A better CS program. If we assume that dropping MS will substantially increase the use of open source software, then it's very likely that CS students will have reasons to explore the code of the products they use every day. So they're being exposed to non-trivial implementations of structures, algorithms, software design decisions, and everything else that comes along with it.
I realize that Microsoft's "Shared Source Initiative" also allows some level of access to the code. But the barriers are much higher (NDAs), and the rewards are much lower (can't recompile, bugfix, or experiment).
Cons:
1) Ten years is a long time. You don't know what new products and services Microsoft will be coming out with over that time, or how useful they might be to the campus. Think about how the computing world has changed since 1993, and ask if the school really should be making such long term decisions about their IT infrastructure.
2) You lose the option to buy Microsoft products. By itself, this fact is too obvious to mention. But what are the ramifications?
3) You lose compatability with important Windows-only software (like certain CAD products). The university may be able to hobble along with the licenses they already own, but that's going to be more and more difficult.
4) People don't like change. Such a transition could make for an ugly political brawl.
[note: Five pros, four cons! Obviously, this means they should take it.]
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
Windows and Linux are just different. One is better than the other in different areas. For example, Windows has a great user interface and offers outstanding tools such as Excel, Word, Internet Explorer, etc. On the other hand, Linux has the ability to handle Internet related matter in a flexible way. Linux also allows developers to manipulate the way the operating system functions by simply editing text files. Only offering one operating system to students decreases their ability to learn two great systems. It's no different then capitalism. The success of capitalism is greatly due to the available options the consumer has to choose from. If we want American schools to produce dynamic, experienced graduates who can bring the best solutions to the work place, all mediums of education should be available.
If it was MS, they would be clearly abusing of their power to extend their monopoly, fair enough to contact the US Justice Dept (well, these days it wouldn't work anyway). In the present case, however, someone is donating money to encourage the University to use FREE software, free as in libre, instead of a monopolistic product. You don't see the difference ? Really ?
I just can't believe how some people try to put MS in the same standpoint as free software in these discussions. It is one huge monopolistic megacorporation that they are comparing with a movement fighting for people's freedom in the use of their computers.
By the way, the donor would be better off stating his point in a slightly different way: I make the donation if the University makes a commitment to use free software only. That's good enough. MS can in principle produce free (as in the GPL) software and offer it to the University ;-)
You've already got the "somebody saying something pro-Microsoft that seems reasonable" karma, so I hope you don't mind me disagreeing with you.
In a country full of schools and colleges using MS Word, you have the gall to claim that anyone not doing so is restricting choice?! Anyone bothered by their decision can GO ELSEWHERE, or use MS products themselves. Nobody is mandating non-Microsoft products; they're just trying to get the college not to pay for them. Microsoft is free to donate them, and students are free to use their own.
The donor isn't seeking to force anyone to buy his products. He's seeking to force them *not* to buy certain products. Sort of like people protesting fur.
Your average computer user has a hard enough time telling the difference between Word, IE, and Windows, let alone between Staroffice and Word. Your argument that learning anything other than Word and Excel is harming someone is pure bullshit. There are more differences between WordXP and earlier versions than there are between WordXP and OO, so the idea that you're training someone wrong doesn't hold water. Most people don't do more than type and underline, which is pretty much the same you'll have to admit, between any two word processors.
You're wrong on your last point too - Microsoft doesn't pay OEMs to use their product. They license the product in such a way that if the OEM wants to sell *any* MS software, it has to sell *only* MS software.
High-speed Road Trip (18.000KPH)
The fellow would be better off spending the $2.4 million on developing methods of teaching students how MS and *nix are related to each other, how BOTH are used in the real world, and familiarizing students with both.
So true. When I was in college our small CS dept ran all its servers on linux and had a even split of NT and linux workstations. In addition we also had some old alpha boxes, macs, sgis, etc... that and CS students could log into and use. This allowed the students to experience a multitude of OSs and hardware, which IMO is one of the important reasons to go to college. To learn and think about things you wouldn't normally learn and think about in the real world.
Now, if I were to argue against using MS in a school I would avoid arguing the cost issue. MS generally gives all of its software(except games) for free(or close to it) to schools and students. Also keep in mind that supporting some lit edu major who can't seem to transfer their powerpoint presentation between their laptop and computers in the lab is also not cheap.
Ever wonder why some universities have money to build new sports stadiums and swimming pools, but no money to fix a broken dining hall? Or why a liberal-arts school might have a brand-new Science building while the library is about to crumble?
One reason is that too many donors are only willing to give money with strings attached. You want to build a Science building, so you ask the Keck or Broad foundation to give you money. No problem. You need to raise an extra 100K here, another 100K there for general maintenance and repair, and nobody wants to give.
If you're in the position to donate a significant amount of money to a university, please consider giving it with no strings attached. I understand that sometimes it's nice to have your name on a building, but don't forget about all of the programs that get neglected because all of the school's money is already earmarked for other projects.
I have few years of commercial Windows coding experience and probably half as much of *nix one and I've gotta tell you that different APIs is not the biggest obstacle (and IDEs certainly are even the lesser one). It's more of the general practices issue. On Windows due to its closedness and incomplete documentation, the developer is haunted by a constant feeling of uncertainty. From simple things like an API call suddenly falling on patched version of WinNT to a methods declared as BOOL something() returing anything but 0 and 1.
:)
Dont get me wrong - it's perfectly fine to have bugs in any code, including the OS, but the inability to fully investigate the problem forces developer to stay as independent from the system API as possible and be constantly ready for the weirdest induced f*ckups possible. Sure, there are tons of people who write the code tightly coupled with Windows, but with this often means creating a lot of work for support and deployment departments.
My general impression is that a good (as in "geeky professional") windows developer does not have much trouble moving to the *nix, while the move in the opposite direction is quite likely to be painful. Scroll the this very thread and see what I'm talking about - *nixoids complaining about Windows, and not the other way around
3.243F6A8885A308D313
Try explaining to a non-geek how to use basic multimedia, dialup or broadband internet or email in Windows, and you'll very, very quickly reach the same problems.
Windows will never be suitable for the average desktop user, because to install it they have to know about things like partitioning hard disks, and formatting and stuff. It's too hard for the average non-geek to understand how to install Windows. Guess what though? It doesn't matter. Non-geeks *don't* install Windows, just as non-geeks don't install Linux. They use it, and it works. It took my incredibly non-techie mother something like 30 minutes to realise she wasn't using Windows when she came round to my house. Didn't stop her using Galeon though.
Well, I guess this will probably send you into an apoplectic fit but please understand that that is not my intent.
I would advise this student to recommend to his/her grandfather to actually go one step further and deploy free software for the university but I won't support my reasoning with a "just because" argument.
In an educational environment, students should not only be able to learn from source code, but they should be encouraged to play with it, modify it, and be able to give the product of their endeavors away. That way, their modifications can played with, modified, and shared by others to the benefit of everyone. Everyone has the opportunity to scrutinize, modify, and (most importantly) share with everyone else. I find it hard to imagine an environment more conducive to the sharing of information...aka education.
While I believe that promoting free software primarily on the campus is a worthy goal, I do not think that prohibiting the teaching or usage of alternatives should be prohibited (even if the maker of the software is Microsoft). As others have noted, there is some great software that is not free or even open-source. Much can be learned from this software so it should not be banned completely. But beware the effects of embrace-and-extend business practices.
The primary goal of any learning institution should be to teach its students. The instructors can not do that if their hands are tied by political or philosophical agendas. I recommend encouraging free software for its open nature and the ability to share (especially for the CS majors), but don't lock anything out unilaterally...especially for the faculty. As anathema as it might be to say here on
--K.
Sig: Bad people happen. Try to avoid being one of them.
Because you can't *do* anything with NT other than look at it and say, "boy, that sure is an operating system."
Exactly. You want to study the file system or memory manager of an operating system? With an open source OS, just look at the source code. Certainly can't do that with NT. The point of an operating systems class is to learn the internal workings and design of operating systems (not how to use them), and Windows NT simply doesn't allow for this.
In the operating systems class I took, we studied and made modifications to the source code of Minix. Adding features to the OS gave quite a bit of insight as to how things actually work. You'll never come close to that with Windows or any other closed source OS, no matter how much you read about it.